A holiday-themed trademark search lesson

Many of the folks who visit our reference desk to learn about trademark searching are interested in searching logos, which is why this year I'm thankful that the USPTO has provided us with the ingenious trademark design search code scheme.

Images are an subject where keyword searching often fails us. Here's the relatively simple procedure for finding designs in TESS, the USPTO's trademark database:

1. Point your browser to the Design Search Code Manual.
2. Click the link for keyword search, then type in a search term describing your logo.
3. If there's a match, jot down the number given for your design type.
4. Access TESS by clicking on Search Marks at the Trademark homepage. Choose either the structured search or the free form search.
   
5. Type in the design code number, plus any other search terms, in the search form. (In structured search, choose design code in the dropdown menu for the field you're using; in the advanced search, use the [DC] field code.

Another useful image-searching tip is to click on the blue "Images" button on the TESS results page. This will bring up a table allowing you to browse images.

If you want to practice over the holiday, I recommend trying Design Search Code 03.15.05. Gobble Gobble!

Trademark Intro at SFPL 10/21 3-4

FYI, here's an upcoming class at SFPL on Saturday, November 21 from 3-4 in the Fifth Floor Training Center:

A trademark search can reveal much valuable information for people hoping to protect a business or product name, those who already have a mark and wish to defend, and for those seeking information about new products and services that may be entering the marketplace. In this class, we will discuss basic facts about trademarks; some fundamentals of conducting a trademark search using the US Patent and Trademark Office website; and information about finding and using SFPL trademark resources.

Taking a look at the New USPTO Website: The "How do I?" menu

There's an argument among librarians about whether it is best to identify information sources on websites and in physical spaces by their proper names or to identify them based on the type of questions that might bring a person to that source. Should we put a sign on the reference desk that says "reference desk" or should the sign say "ask?" On the website, should the link say "databases" or should it say "find articles here?" The concern we're trying to address is that jargon, of which there is much in libraries, is a barrier to navigating the library.

The correct answer is probably a combination of the two, based on the situation. (For instance, catalog could be considered low-grade jargon, but it seems to be the best noun to describe what it is, so why not call it the catalog but use the verb search or something along those lines. I'm sure you're all fascinated with this hot debate.)

The new USPTO employs the FAQ-style technique to great effect in the new "How do I..." menu at the right-hand corner of the webpage header. They've taken a list of the most common tasks that people accessing the site wish to complete and linked information about how to complete those tasks. It aids navigation through an enormous site, addresses common information needs, and includes a link to a list of PTDL libraries. Perfect!

Taking a look at the new USPTO website: Patents and Trademarks process

I've eaten the same lunch (peanut butter sandwich and a piece of fruit) pretty much every day for almost 20 years now. I haven't changed shampoo brands (a certain discount brand's coconut scent) since I left for college. I can't say that I have a favorite album, movie, or book, but I've probably listened to Exile on Main Street on average about once a month since I was ten, seen Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome a couple of times a year since about that age, and I've reread East of Eden, flawed though it may be, more than any other book, probably half a dozen times.

I would consider none of these items my favorite in their respective categories; my point is that I have a tendency to find something that works and then get really comfortable with it. So when the USPTO changed their website, I had a brief period of curiosity and excitement followed by a state of confusion. The previous website was certainly far from "user friendly," but, by golly, it was familiar. I had learned the complicated ritual of clicks and scrolls required to get to, for instance, the Index to the USPC, or the Design Code Search Manual.

Here's the point of all of the above navel-gazing: the new website is much better organized, and it has retained some of the best parts of the old while introducing some vast improvements. While I'm gradually getting accustomed to it, I plan to highlight in this space some of the new features (or old features that were previously buried) that work well.

The first really cool new features are two handy lists called Patents Process and The Trademark Process. The folks at the PTO have taken the very complicated processes of applying for patents or trademarks and broken them down into five and nine steps, respectively.

Exhaustive it ain't. But what these lists are is a starting point, complete with links to the relevant tools and search guides. These lists make dealing with the USPTO seem doable, which is very valuable for small entities. For me, this means a new resource for library patrons who are just about ready to dive into the weird and wonderful world of intellectual property.

The iPhone profit pie

Marketplace's Scott Tong had a great piece in yesterday's show about the chain of profits coming from Apple's iPhone.

Japanese, Korean, and Chinese companies pull in varying percentages of the profit from an iPhone by selling parts and, particularly in China's case, labor to Apple during the production of the phone.

The crux of the story is that, though many different companies across the world do much of the work to manufacture the iPhone, Apple still takes in an estimated half of the profit on every $300 iPhone, compared to, say, around $4 per phone for the Chinese companies who build them. From the transcript:

From China's perspective, here's the moral of the iPhone story: the dominant players in the global economy are the inventors and the brand owners: whether it's electronics, or cars, or clothing.

It's an important lesson! Intellectual Property is big money in the modern world, whether it's a patent for an innovative touch screen or a trendy Apple logo. Listen to the whole story here.

LO -- The Internet turns 40 today

On October 29th, 1969, while folks in San Francisco were getting together for events like this, scientists just down the Peninsula in Menlo Park managed to get two computers to communicate with each other.

With that first transmission (the computer tried to display "LOGIN" but crashed after "LO"), the Internet was arguably born, 40 years ago today. Happy birthday, Internet!

The story of the ARPA NET, the Defense Department project that laid the groundwork for the World Wide Web, is quite interesting. Here's a great summary from DARPA themselves, complete with a reprint of what appears to be a cocktail napkin sketch of the Internet, reprinted at the top of this post.

Because of evidence bungle, we may never get a verdict in the Fairey fair use case

Wired reported last week that Shepard Fairey lied to his attorneys and tried to destroy evidence related to his copyright infringement case brought by the Associated Press for his adaptation of an AP photo of Barack Obama.

Quick recap: Shepard Fairey, a visual artist known for his provocative street art, created an iconic campaign poster for the Obama 2008 campaign. Fairey did not reveal the model for the image in the poster, but when it was discovered that the portrait was based on a 2006 photograph taken by an AP photographer, the AP sued Fairey for using their image without permission.

The suit quickly became the basis for a hot debate on fair use, the copyright doctrine that allows for portions of copyrighted works to be used by others under certain circumstances. I've written about the case twice, here and here.

Part of the case was a dispute about which of two very similar photos Fairey based his work on. Last week Fairey admitted that he had lied about which photo he used and had tried to destroy evidence. He claims that it was initially a mistake, but that he continued to lie once he realized his mistake.

Many in the press have speculated that Fairey's ethical blunder may cause him to lose his case before the fair use element can be argued.

That would be a serious bummer. Interpretation of copyright law in the United States is largely based on precedent; a ruling in this case from a Federal judge would have offered some guidance on some very pressing copyright questions.

The case isn't closed yet, so I suppose you could say there's still "hope" that we'll get a ruling out of this after all.